On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 10:10:32AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 at 20:57, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > So this (and the dl etc. equivalents) result in exactly the problems > > > complained about last time, no? > > > > > > What I proposed was something along the lines of: > > > > > > util = 1024 * sg_cpu->util_cfs; > > > util /= (1024 - (sg_cpu->util_rt + sg_cpu->util_dl + ...)); > > > > > > return min(sg_cpu->max, util + sg_cpu->bw_dl); > > I see that you use sg_cpu->util_dl and sg_cpu->bw_dl in your equation > above but this patch 04 only adds rt util_avg and the dl util_avg has > not been added yet. > dl util_avg is added in patch 6 > So for this patch, we are only using sg_cpu->bw_dl
Yeah, not the point really. It is about how we're going to use the (rt,dl,irq etc..) util values, more than which particular one was introduced here. I'm just not a big fan of the whole: freq := cfs_util + rt_util thing (as would be obvious by now).
